Neodyum Miknatis
amateur porn
implant
olabahis
Casino Siteleri
Kayseri escort
canli poker siteleri kolaybet meritslot
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
Short Reads

Directors' liability due to competition law infringements by the company

Directors' liability due to competition law infringements by

Directors' liability due to competition law infringements by the company

01.10.2020 NL law

The District Court Noord-Nederland recently allowed the trustees in bankruptcy of Northsea shrimp trading company Heiploeg to recover part of a EUR 27 million cartel fine from a former director.

Internationally, the question whether companies can recover competition law fines through civil claims against individuals involved in the competition law infringement, is controversial. The court held, however, that the director’s personal involvement in the infringement amounted to ‘serious mismanagement’, triggering personal liability to pay damages.

Since the director had held his position with the company for 48.05% of the duration of the infringement, the court only awarded damages equaling a pro rata part of the fine. Those damages must be further reduced by the ‘contribution share’ of the defendant’s co-directors in accordance with article 6:14 of the Dutch Civil Code (cf. Article 19(1) of Directive 2014/104/EU).

In 2013, the European Commission imposed fines totaling almost EUR 29 million on four Northsea shrimp trading companies: Heiploeg, Klaas Puul, Kok Seafood (all of the Netherlands) and Stührk (of Germany). The Commission found that these companies had breached Article 101 TFEU by agreeing to fix prices and share sales volumes of North Sea shrimps in Belgium, France, Germany and the Netherlands. Of the four addressees, Heiploeg was (by far) the most heavily hit; its fine amounted to EUR 27,082,000. In 2014, the company was declared bankrupt.

In the course of the bankruptcy proceedings, the trustees sought to recover the losses associated with the cartel infringement from company directors who had been involved in the infringing conduct. Most of these directors settled with the trustees, but the defendant did not. Consequently, the bankruptcy trustees sued the defendant for ‘directors' liability’ under article 2:9 of the Dutch Civil Code and, more generally, for negligence under article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code.

In its decision, the District Court upheld the trustees’ claim based on article 2:9 Dutch Civil Code. The court found that the defendant played an important role in the price-fixing arrangements and had personally caused the Heiploeg company to violate EU competition law. The defendant could and should have foreseen that his conduct could lead to fines and/or other serious financial and reputational damage, which could result in Heiploeg failing to perform its obligations vis-à-vis creditors of the company. In short, the defendant was found guilty of 'serious mismanagement', for which he can be held liable to pay damages. However, after the defendant retired from the board of directors in 2004, the infringement continued until 2009. Therefore, the court decided to hold the defendant liable only for a 48.05% share of the fine imposed by the European Commission, reflecting the duration of his tenure during the infringement period.

Internationally, the question whether companies can recover competition law fines through civil claims against individuals who were involved in the competition law infringement, is controversial. In Safeway Stores Ltd./Twigger, the English Court of Appeal held that the maxim of “ex turpi causa” prevents a company from recovering for damage which is the consequence of his own criminal or quasi-criminal act. And since liability for competition law fines is personal to the relevant undertakings, “they are personally liable to pay those penalties and it would be inconsistent with that liability for them to be able to recover those penalties in the civil courts from the defendants”. In the Netherlands, however, the courts are less adverse to the notion that companies recover (part of) criminal and quasi-criminal fines imposed on them from the individual officers and employees who were personally involved in the (quasi-) criminal conduct. Cf. also the decision of the Arnhem Court of Appeal of 11 January 2011, in which a company that had been criminally prosecuted for breaching the UN trade embargo against Iraq recovered half of the fine from a former director in civil court.

Finally, the damages awarded against the defendant will be reduced by the ‘contribution share’ of the defendant’s co-directors with whom the trustees reached a prior settlement. This reduction, which was agreed in that settlement in accordance with article 6:14 of the Dutch Civil Code, protects the settling co-directors against future contribution claims. Cf. also Article 19(1) of Directive 2014/104/EU, which states that “following a consensual settlement, the claim of the settling injured party is reduced by the settling co-infringer's share of the harm that the infringement of competition law inflicted upon the injured party”.

 

This article was published in the Competition Newsletter of October 2020. Other articles in this newsletter:

 

Team

Related news

05.11.2020 NL law
Jurisdictional hide & seek: merger thresholds and buyer joint ventures

Short Reads - Companies beware: the turnover of a joint venture buying a target is not necessarily decisive for determining whether the EU merger thresholds are met. The General Court fully upheld the Commission’s 2017 decision prohibiting the joint acquisition of Cemex’s Hungarian and Croatian subsidiaries by cement companies HeidelbergCement and Schwen Zement through their full-function joint venture (JV).

Read more

11.11.2020 EU law
Innovatie en staatssteun. Het CBb leidt de weg bij de belangrijke definities industrieel onderzoek en experimentele ontwikkeling

Short Reads - Het College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (“CBb”) heeft op 6 oktober 2020 in een subsidiegeschil nadere invulling gegeven aan het onderscheid tussen “industrieel onderzoek” en “experimentele ontwikkeling”. Dit onderscheid staat centraal in nationale subsidieregelingen en Europese staatssteunregels die overheidsinvesteringen in onderzoek, ontwikkeling en innovatie (“O&O&I”) mogelijk moeten maken.

Read more

05.11.2020 NL law
General Court confirms: no proof, no dawn raid

Short Reads - The Commission should think twice before conducting a dawn raid. The General Court partially annulled three Commission decisions ordering dawn raids at the premises of French supermarkets for a lack of sufficiently strong evidence with regard to one of the suspected anticompetitive practices. In addition, the General Court clarified that interviews held with suppliers prior to the issuing of a dawn raid decision can be used as evidence, even when these interviews have not been recorded.

Read more

05.11.2020 NL law
Belgian prohibition on abuse of economic dependence comes into force and new fining guidelines

Short Reads - In 2019, Belgium introduced legislation banning abuse in relationships between companies where there is no dominant position, but rather a position of economic dependence. The act entered into force on 22 August 2020. This category of restrictive practice applies alongside the existing prohibitions on cartels and abuse of a dominant position. It opens up new opportunities but also new threats for companies that are not in a dominant position.

Read more

05.11.2020 NL law
This article has FIVE stars! New Dutch consumer rules to curb fake reviews

Short Reads - Consumers often rely on online reviews to decide what bike to buy, where to eat or what article to read. But what if those reviews are fake? New Dutch rules were announced on 23 October 2020 seeking to ensure a higher level of consumer protection online. These rules mean more obligations for online traders, and potentially high fines if they get it wrong. For example, traders should implement procedures to ensure that published reviews originate from consumers who have genuinely used the product.

Read more